Exactly, which was my point, but I do agree with the rest of your post. Seems that regardless of your capacity of involvement in the court of law (ie accused or accuser), the collateral damage is severe (depending on severity of crime). Getting off topic here but HBO’s The Night Of documents this to great effect, albeit slightly different in that it’s a murder trial.@ivaldo @jungledrums
Of course that point of view doesn't hold for the individual wrongly accused but their experience is still no worse than that of those whose honest accusations are wrongly denied. A balance needs to be struck within the system between the interests of the possibly falsely accused and the interests of the possibly rightly accusing. That balance can't be struck if we just focus on the point of view of one individual in one scenario.
Cheers for clarifying.In England and Wales the legal studies board apparently advocates the wording "proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that makes you sure of the defendant’s guilt". In other words they have to be sure rather than almost sure, certain rather than almost certain. It's an extremely high threshold for the prosecution to meet.
Did you read the transcripts of the trial. One of the main tactics ued against her was to say she was up for a threesome and then regretted it. As for anonymity? In Belfast? I doubt it.I agree with the general view you are making here. But I cant say I agree with this. How was she slut shamed? She has complete anonymity, they dont. .
Agreed. Bold particularly true.Living and working in Belfast this situation has been an intense debating point and subject to an incredible amount of rumours and whispers. It is a small community and there is always someone who is connected to someone. A lot of very unhappy people after this decision, supposed to be a march(yeah, another one) to the Courthouse today, most of the girls/women I work with were planning to attend. Have heard some very unpleasant stories from them during this trial about their own experiences, the lack of trust in the system to punish sexual assault, there was a great deal of investment in the verdict. Not sure that is entirely healthy in keeping perspective and judging cases individually but understandable. Apparently the young woman had just finished her A levels at the time, barely more than a kid, 18, near enough 2 years of her life dealing with this.
Social media reaction has been vile, no surprise there, even if they are innocent their Whatsapp messages should mean they never play for Ireland again, horrible look for the sponsors if they do.
I can't agree with this. She was on the stand for 7 days with intimate details of it in the media every day, with the four lads on the stand for half a day each. The reporting reflected this.One of the problems of following a trial through the media is that there's no legal or regulatory requirement to be balanced. Accurate and contemporaneous, sure. But when it comes to reporting trials it's very common for media to report statements from witnesses of the accusing party, testimony of the accused party themselves and comment made by the accused party's legal representatives, and barely report any thing from the other side.
Based on what I read I'm quite sure I would have found them guilty. But going by media coverage of 99% of trials where only really what the accused party says gets significant airing, I'd probably find everyone accused of every crime ever guilty too.
I dont want to sound harsh and I in no way agree with what happened to her but as part of a rape trial Im afraid that that is ultimately going to be an almost default tactic that the defence will use. Its probably morally not correct but its simply going to happen. Any defence lawyyer is going to employ that tactic.Did you read the transcripts of the trial. One of the main tactics ued against her was to say she was up for a threesome and then regretted it. As for anonymity? In Belfast? I doubt it.
Agree with the rest of your post.
Can understand a lot of the anger here. While I think it's incredibly risky to start partaking in trials by media and attempting to sway verdicts outside the court, it should be remembered that historically a lot of legislation concerning this has been incredibly outdated and it's only really in modern times we've started to catch up.#IBelieveHer solidarity rallies happening all over the country today.
A lot of people blaming the Irish criminal justice system for this. The fact they didn't even realise it was tried in Belfast under UK law just shows how quick some people are to jump on social media bandwagons#IBelieveHer solidarity rallies happening all over the country today.
#IBelieveHer solidarity rallies happening all over the country today.
And likewise I can understand why people believe her, and wish to publicly acknowledge that fact.Can understand a lot of the anger here. While I think it's incredibly risky to start partaking in trials by media and attempting to sway verdicts outside the court, it should be remembered that historically a lot of legislation concerning this has been incredibly outdated and it's only really in modern times we've started to catch up.
The problem with all this is the general public lack of understanding that a) thee is a difference between thinking someone is guilty, and bring 100% sure they are, and that a jury can only base a guilty verdict on the later, and b) the evidence you hear and see and have to judge, as a member of a jury, is VERY different from the evidence that gets reported to the public.And likewise I can understand why people believe her, and wish to publicly acknowledge that fact.
@Oscie touched on it earlier in the thread, but it seems to me to be an entirely sensible position to think that she probably was raped. The difficulty arrises in going from that 'probably' to a degree of certainty that would make me satisfied that they should be criminally convicted. I'm sure there were members of that jury who think that she was raped but couldn't be certain enough to convict. Had I been on the jury I'm not certain I would not have been one of them
That's not a bug, but the justice system working as intended, but I have no idea how you can square the circle here and ensure more convictions without causing more problems (such as the cases being dropped recently because CPS were withholding evidence).
The taxi driver witness was concerning. Did he actually state blood, I thought he stated 'stain'. The issue of doubt there is that a woman can be upset after a 1 night stand and a night on the booze without being raped.Lots of witnesses made multiple statements, including the taxi driver recalling her being in distress and crying with blood on her. No one witness statement weighs heavier than another.
This isn't quite right. 11-12% of reported rapes get a conviction, but only about 20% goto trial. And this will be a plethora of reasons whether it's a woman retracting or that the evidence is weak or a suspect can't be found and so on.Also the 50% rate is for reportable crimes at trial. The rate I was referring to is the attrition rate, which is the amount of convictions resulting from reports of a crime, and is not routinely calculated for any crime other than rape. I.e sexual assault, misconduct, harassment etc.
So someone is able to sexually harass, assault and rape you and the conviction rate for that is above 50%, but if someone rapes you the conviction rate is roughly 11%. Prosecutors usually place more weight on rape because there is more likely to be evidence for this, but that can be the downfall of their stance when it comes to trial (as it was in this case)
In what sense do you believe it should be re-formed?All of this makes it difficult to find the "true" figures if you will - but it only furthers the idea that the way these cases are carried out should be thoroughly reviewed.
No it isn't incorrect, we don't know how many convictions are miscariages of justice. But there's many motives for reporting false rape claims. Sometimes women regret having crap sex with someone they consider uses and mocks them and want revenge. Sometimes women cheat on their partners in one night stands and can claim innocence to their partner by saying 'I was raped'. And some women just want a payout from victims compensation and a civil claim. This girl wanted to punish her dad for being strict and he nearly went to prison for raping her before she admitted at the end of the court case that she made it all up:Yes some women do lie about rape. But the idea that this is commonplace, is simply incorrect:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ution-women-lying-collapse-liam-allan-victims
The idea of women "crying rape" is peddled far more often than to be true, and falls within the realm of rape culture more often than not.
People love a bandwagon.#IBelieveHer solidarity rallies happening all over the country today.
Jury selection is a very interesting topic. I think there was a Criminal podcast episode that covered it once.@Wibble regards that thing 8 men & 3 women. Interesting what you said.
I spoke with a person very close to the defence team and asked him was he not delighted to have 8 men on the jury. He said they were put in by the prosecution and overwhelmingly men favour the rape victim. He said that the defense won by lowering the age profiles.
When I was in court - The male jury looked all IT employees, very bland, very boring and grey. only 2 were over age of 40. 6 out of the 8 constantly wrote notes. Literally constantly. The women were spread about in age.
Jury selection is a very interesting topic. I think there was a Criminal podcast episode that covered it once.
The Irish Times looked into male/female representation on serious crimes. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...n-juries-in-serious-criminal-trials-1.3156886
Surely a victim testimony alongside with vaginal tearing/bleeding alongside a taxi driver witness statement is more than enough evidence to get to court? But maybe you've heard details that we haven't.Sat in on the case for 4 days as my work is literally on the doorstep of the court.
On one day I sat beside the family of Stuart Olding who shared a bag of mint humbugs with me.
There is a large crowd outside the court at present - not overly big.
My view is that this case should never have seen the light of day of a courtroom. No way was there enough evidence to put these 4 on trial.
Also I see my good friend Joe McVeigh taking a lot of heat on social media. He has every right and I think the sentiment within the legal system is he is right to acknowledge the behaviour on social media and the continued abuse these 4 men receive (even when not guilty)
It's a good point, the prosecution should have looked to question her reliability as a witness.I'll delete this if needs be - something I've been wondering, the main witness was called Dara who walked in on them. What was she doing in the house? Is she connected to or an acquaintance of Jackson? Do they have past history? If so how can her testimony hold weight?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0330/951154-belfast-rape-trial/The office of the Northern Ireland Attorney General, John Larkin, has confirmed that comments made online by a juror in the Belfast rape trial have been referred to them.
The comments appeared several hours after Ulster and Ireland rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were acquitted on Wednesday of raping a woman in June 2016.
Two other men, Blane McIlroy and Rory Harrison, were also acquitted of the charges against them.
The juror made the remarks in the comments section of an article on Broadsheet.ie about the acquittals in the trial.
Surely a victim testimony alongside with vaginal tearing/bleeding alongside a taxi driver witness statement is more than enough evidence to get to court? But maybe you've heard details that we haven't.
As for 'social media' I don't go on it but everyone has a right to free speech and discriminate against people they consider to be unethical or immoral. Many clearly consider these men guilty of a crime, even if a court ruled against it.
After reading @Massive Spanner summary I'd say she was definitely raped and this is a complete miscarriage of justice. It boils down to her testimony being backed up by the medical evidence. That is more evidence than a rape case usually warrants. Absolutely disgusting and probably partly due to celebrity and social connections. Obviously Dara Florence's evidence shows she didn't put up a huge fight but that doesn't prove she consented and also pretty much proved Paddy Jackson to have lied under oath. The texts also prove Jackson to be lying that penetration didn't occur.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This case certainly seems to have struck a nerve and reading through the piece @Massive Spanner posted it's easy to see why.
If it was just a matter of deciding what probably or likely happened then I'd imagine we'd be in a rather different situation right now. The accuser's story seems far more believable than the defendants', just not to the extent required by the court. A mess.
Personally I don't think the medical evidence amounts to much as the injuries "could" have been caused by consentual activity.After reading @Massive Spanner summary I'd say she was definitely raped and this is a complete miscarriage of justice. It boils down to her testimony being backed up by the medical evidence. That is more evidence than a rape case usually warrants. Absolutely disgusting and probably partly due to celebrity and social connections. Obviously Dara Florence's evidence shows she didn't put up a huge fight but that doesn't prove she consented and also pretty much proved Paddy Jackson to have lied under oath. The texts also prove Jackson to be lying that penetration didn't occur.
Hopefully clubs boycott them and if not every decent fan loudly remind them what they are whenever they step on the pitch.
You've just contradicted yourself here because a 'laceration' means tearing and bleeding. Now perhaps you're trying to argue 'something else could have caused it'. Which is very unlikely but could be true and we then have to see how likely that is given she is saying they raped her. FYI juries are supposed to go on likelyhood on events happening.I am sorry but this is my problem with this....
There was no evidence of Vaginal tearing / bleeding. If you are going to press charges surely you need this evidence. the word "Could " was used. As in a Rape case - if there is an element of doubt this is worthless.
Here is the what was reported
"This afternoon the men’s trial heard from a forensic medical examiner about a laceration to the woman’s “vaginal wall” which could have been caused by a “penis, a finger or an object.”
He said it was not possible to determine what exactly had caused the injuries or whether they resulted from consensual activity"
The Taxi driver when pressed said the incident was of no concern to him.
There is free speech and slander - Do you know the difference??
So despite the verdict you’d be comfortable shouting rapist rapist from the terraces? Fair playAfter reading @Massive Spanner summary I'd say she was definitely raped and this is a complete miscarriage of justice. It boils down to her testimony being backed up by the medical evidence. That is more evidence than a rape case usually warrants. Absolutely disgusting and probably partly due to celebrity and social connections. Obviously Dara Florence's evidence shows she didn't put up a huge fight but that doesn't prove she consented and also pretty much proved Paddy Jackson to have lied under oath. The texts also prove Jackson to be lying that penetration didn't occur.
Hopefully clubs boycott them and if not every decent fan loudly remind them what they are whenever they step on the pitch.
You've just contradicted yourself here because a 'laceration' means tearing and bleeding. Now perhaps you're trying to argue 'something else could have caused it'. Which is very unlikely but could be true and we then have to see how likely that is given she is saying they raped her. FYI juries are supposed to go on likelyhood on events happening.
Could the tearing have happened during consensual sex? It's unlikely because a woman during concensual sex becomes aroused and lubricated. A woman being forced doesn't lubricate and hence her vagina can tear. She is also more likely to suffer tearing if a fist is forced into her vagina.
Your making an argument for all rape cases to be dismissed out of hand if you want a greater evidence than what they had. They even had the defendants contradicting themselves meaning the jury should not have believed their testimony.
That evidence here is more than enough for a conviction in any normal circumstances. You seem to be implying we should have Islamic standard of evidence for rape where 3 male witnesses are required or perhaps video evidence. Realistically never charging any man with rape ever.
The attitude here is very disturbing.
